(26-04-2016 11:03 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: I highly doubt that. A veteran myself who maintains ties with the military and veteran communities, I have a pretty good idea how seriously the Oath is taken, and to be honest, don't really take kindly to folks aspersing the fidelity of the men and women serving our country today -- especially that they'd place partisan politics above their Oath. I don't buy it.

What he said.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus

(26-04-2016 12:09 PM)Chas Wrote: I understand your points, but if some in the military saw the government as actually illegitimate then they might take that to mean their oath is null and void.

Possibly. And the fact is that the oath is in part an oath to protect the Constitution, which is the slender reed upon which Red Dawn types base this sort of reasoning. And were I still in I'd certainly question turning our weapons upon Americans. Such a move would have to have an extremely strong rationale to garner my support.

The idea of wholesale defections, though, particularly on the basis of partisanship, strikes me as fanciful ... wishful thinking.

(26-04-2016 12:09 PM)Chas Wrote: I understand your points, but if some in the military saw the government as actually illegitimate then they might take that to mean their oath is null and void.

They would be in the wrong in the described instance. A legally elected government decides to make a policy change those who oppose it are in the minority. At what point does a gun nuts love of guns override democratic process?

This is not necessarily about guns - why do you assume that?
A government going beyond its Constitutional powers and violating the people's Constitutional rights renders that government illegitimate, even criminal.
That government no longer legitimately represents the electorate.

That is essentially the basis of the U.S.A. in its separation from Great Britain.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.

(26-04-2016 12:15 PM)Revenant77x Wrote: They would be in the wrong in the described instance. A legally elected government decides to make a policy change those who oppose it are in the minority. At what point does a gun nuts love of guns override democratic process?

This is not necessarily about guns - why do you assume that?
A government going beyond its Constitutional powers and violating the people's Constitutional rights renders that government illegitimate, even criminal.
That government no longer legitimately represents the electorate.

That is essentially the basis of the U.S.A. in its separation from Great Britain.

The constitution can be changed though, through legal means - after all that's how amendments got put there. That's the only circumstance under which an anti-gun law would be passed as far as I understand it, otherwise it *would* be struck down by the courts as unconstitutional. LDH's post then extrapolated from that that *even if* such a law were passed he and his fellow nutbags would be non-compliant and would initiate an armed uprising.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette

(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote: And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.

There will be no revolution. There will certainly be no mass defection of military personnel to side with one. If the Second Amendment is ever removed from the Constitution - which is exceptionally unlikely, despite the NRA's delusional ramblings to the contrary, and would be done through legal means even if it were to happen - the majority of gun owners would surrender their firearms without a fight. They might grumble, they might organize a protest, they might even try to hide a piece or two around the house in the knowledge that no policeman is going to press too hard. But they won't start a revolution.

The only people who think that a full armed uprising is even a remote possibility are the delusional idiots who are the entire reason the rest of the country wants stricter gun control laws.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it." - A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner

(26-04-2016 01:06 PM)Chas Wrote: This is not necessarily about guns - why do you assume that?
A government going beyond its Constitutional powers and violating the people's Constitutional rights renders that government illegitimate, even criminal.
That government no longer legitimately represents the electorate.

That is essentially the basis of the U.S.A. in its separation from Great Britain.

The constitution can be changed though, through legal means - after all that's how amendments got put there. That's the only circumstance under which an anti-gun law would be passed as far as I understand it, otherwise it *would* be struck down by the courts as unconstitutional. LDH's post then extrapolated from that that *even if* such a law were passed he and his fellow nutbags would be non-compliant and would initiate an armed uprising.

Indeed the constitution is a living document and as such can and should be changed as time progresses. If through the legally allowed venues the constitution was changed in such a way (not saying it will or the likelihood) armed rebellion puts you in the wrong. That was the described circumstances in DH's mastrubation fantasy.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote: America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense

(26-04-2016 01:15 PM)morondog Wrote: The constitution can be changed though, through legal means - after all that's how amendments got put there. That's the only circumstance under which an anti-gun law would be passed as far as I understand it, otherwise it *would* be struck down by the courts as unconstitutional. LDH's post then extrapolated from that that *even if* such a law were passed he and his fellow nutbags would be non-compliant and would initiate an armed uprising.

Indeed the constitution is a living document and as such can and should be changed as time progresses. If through the legally allowed venues the constitution was changed in such a way (not saying it will or the likelihood) armed rebellion puts you in the wrong. That was the described circumstances in DH's mastrubation fantasy.

(25-04-2016 09:38 AM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote: The greatest thing about America is that the majority that votes for a particular political party has chosen to remain heavily armed throughout the years, while members of the other party have chosen to disarm and shun weapons.

The Golden Rule: He who has the gold makes the rules.

Ammo is the new gold.

(25-04-2016 10:54 AM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote: This will be a collective decision, only after the country has moved too far to the left that no return is possible.

So... the take home from all of this is "fuck American democracy"? "If the majority of the population doesn't want the same things we do, we'll overthrow the democracy with deadly force"?